Posters at this space have linked to what has now become a debate between two contributors to WIRED. David Brin has responded to Bruce Schneier’s article, “The Myth of the ‘Transparent Society” with his article entitled, “David Brin Rebuts Schneier In Defense of a Transparent Society.” Sadly, neither author hits the right mark.
The major failing in Brin’s response is the petulance he exhibits in response to an imagined attack on his book, The Transparent Society. Brin overstates Schneier’s assessment of societal transparency, characterizing it as a “major departure from our present social contract” even as he correctly quotes Schneier merely saying it would be “different than before.”
Brin’s pique continues when he accuses Schneier of suggesting “that transparency would end privacy, making everyone walk around naked.” Schneier does, indeed, say that under a system of mutual disclosure of information “[w]e both have less privacy,” but less privacy is not the same as no privacy. Further, Schneier never even implies we’d all be walking around naked, literally or metaphorically. Brin is clearly misusing Schneier’s doctor’s office example to create a “caricature” of Schneier’s position. The hypocrisy of this rhetorical maneuver is stunning because it comes in the very line of the article in which Brin accuses Schneier of caricaturing the argument in Brin’s book.
Perhaps these inaccuracies stem from a misunderstanding Brin brings to the table. He seems to think that Schneier has criticized The Transparent Society on the basis that it “doesn’t address ‘the inherent value of privacy.’” Brin quotes Schneier’s words accurately, but ignores the context. While Brin is busy being offended that Schneier missed the “several chapters” in his book that do address the value of privacy, he ignores the fact that Schneier wasn’t criticizing the book for this lack, but rather was criticizing the concept itself for not addressing the value of privacy. That may seem like a small distinction, but the fact that Brin misses it and doesn’t address the actual argument Schneier makes only makes it clear that Brin’s is a personal beef.
What Brin does very well is provide a wonderful analogy for his vision of a transparent society. Brin gives us the “restaurant analogy” that demonstrates the privacy to be found in a crowd and the resulting transparency of any efforts to eavesdrop on our conversations. It is only when we erect barriers between the tables, Brin says, that we allow others to listen in with impunity. In making this point, Brin seems to think he is shattering Schneier’s case when, in fact, he is supporting it. This unfortunate misunderstanding is the result of Schneier’s own inability to clearly articulate his point.
Schneier argues that transparency is ultimately an ineffective and perhaps unattainable goal because of “the crucial dissimilarity of power” that exists between “the governors and the governed.” He illustrates this point with an example of a police officer demanding to see your identification. A similar demand on your part for the officer’s identification, Schneier argues, “gives you no comparable power over him or her. The power balance is too great and mutual disclosure does not make it OK.”
Schneier is right to suggest that the power imbalance is a determining factor in the value of transparency to this situation. He misses, however, the flaw in his example. Not only is the power imbalance present, but there hasn’t actually been equal disclosure. While you may be in possession of the officer’s name and badge number, you also don’t have access to the wealth of information about the officer that he is privy to about you. It is not only power that is an issue in this example, but access to information.
Schneier opens himself to Brin’s attack because he fails to connect the dots. Schneier’s argument is quietly premised on the current power imbalance. His argument sounds as if he believes, as Brin accuses him, that “light should shine in one direction, from masses onto elites, not the other way around.” In fact, Schneier’s argument is that it should shine in both directions and as equally as possible. As he says, “All aspects of government work best when the relative power between the governors and the governed remains as small as possible – when liberty is high and control is low.”
Ultimately, though, Schneier’s argument is weakened because he does not state explicitly that because of the growing inequities of power, the light is becoming more unidirectional, shining from the government on the governed because bidirectional transparency is effectively being blocked by the use of the government’s power. As Brin might say, the government has erected “shoji screens,” the better to “press their ears against the screens and peer through the slits with impunity.”
This is clearly the case when the government seeks to gather information about its citizens through, as Schneier says, “Ubiquitous surveillance programs that affect everyone without probable cause or warrant” but refuses to submit its actions to any kind of review. Certainly, there are legitimate national security concerns in an open, transparent society, but when national security is used as a shield for blocking any attempts at transparency, the power imbalance is only exacerbated. This is ultimately Schneier’s argument, that “no one is safer in a political system of control.”
About that, he is correct, Brin’s accurate statements about our “openness experiment” and its imperfections notwithstanding. While he criticizes Schneier’s argument on all the wrong points, even Brin concludes, “All of the great enlightenment arenas – markets, science, and democracy – flourish in direct proportion to how much their players (consumers, scientists, and voters) know, in order to make good decisions. To whatever extent these arenas get clogged by secrecy, they fail.
That is the danger with which we are currently faced and the one about which Schneier is trying to warn us. Despite his misunderstanding of Schneier’s point, it is clear Brin essentially agrees with Schneier about the value of transparency. They just can’t seem to agree about whether or not we have a sufficient amount of light shining in both directions at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I find that this whole debate about transparency and balancing power teeters precariously on a notion that remains somewhat unproven:
In this debate everyone seems to operate under the presumption that there is some powerful elite seeking to disproportionately collect data to use against us and that, because the balance is tipped in this theoretical elite's favor, the balance of power, transparency, and privacy is tipped toward them as well.
I grant that there are people in positions of power who wield that power more thoroughly and effectively than people are comfortable with, but I reject outright the notion that the entirety of any element of power, be it governmental or otherwise, is so united as to allow for the reality of this imbalance to actually exist.
I reject this notion for a simple reason: we ultimately do live in a transparent society that allows for unprecedented expressions of individualism even in environments where individualism is extremely restricted like military service and people serving time in prison (please to not take the two items as a comparison).
Given that we are a society of individuals, it is nearly impossible for any organization, however much power may be invested into it, to act with any clear unity unless the entire organization feels threatened. Even then, monolithic exercises of power are rare and limited in scope.
Certainly, there are examples of individual abuses of power, but these instances are quickly identified and corrected (Elliot Spitzer comes to mind). In rare cases these abuses are found to be institutional, but often even they occur in instances were individualism and its inherent check of power has already been compromised (Abu Ghraib comes to mind).
What I am interested in hearing from someone is a documentable case of one of the following: an elite base of power that acts unchecked, a monolithic base of power that acts unchecked, or an individual that has accumulated so much power that they can act unchecked.
If any of these examples exist, they they would serve as a case study for actual abuse of power and the potential for unbalanced invasion of individual privacy. Until then, I am highly skeptical that the whole issue of a transparent society is actually relevant.
Before I respond to your challenge in full (assuming I can), I want to see if I have this straight:
You are willing to accept as a matter of necessity that we allow our government to monitor, detain, and in fact imprison people in this country who have not actually committed a crime based soley on the possibility that they might commit a crime, but you need absolute, iron-clad proof of unchecked elite, monolithic or individual abuses of power before you're willing to even consider whether the transparency our founding fathers sought to provide us as a hedge against tyranny is relevant.
Do I have that right?
And while you're answering that, let me be sure I understand your Elliot Spitzer comment. Are you referring to his prostitution issue as an abuse of power, or is there something else? He broke the law, no doubt. He didn't need to abuse power to do so, though. However, I want to know if you think that breaking the law is an abuse of power or if there is something else you're referring to.
And before I waste a lot of time on your challenge, let me just see if I can get you to reframe it because it's a trap -- I recognize that much.
No one can prove what you're asking because, by definition, one has to KNOW about the abuse of power in order to check it. So by the very nature of your challenge, you have to draw the logical conclusion that transparency is not only relevant, it is critical. Without transparency, you can't check power. That's why people in power invariably tend toward secrecy when they are initiating or contemplating wrong-doing.
If you don't understand the relevance of transparency to our society, you truly don't understand a lot of the history that you have elsewhere claimed to understand. You've shown yourself to be pretty smart elsewhere in our debates, I'm going to assume that you mispoke here in your haste to make a point. I honestly find it hard to believe that you meant precisely what you said in your comment.
David, I do not intend my questions as a trap, but rather an attempt to drive to the heart of the debate.
The point that I am trying to make is that the check is, indeed, occurring. The fact that we are debating the issue of the powers that the government can or should have to be able to do the job we have asked it to do proves that the transparency is already there. The fact that the Congress and the President are locked in their difficult political tango proves that the system is working as it was designed to work.
I do not, as you suggest, grant the government a blank check to do the things you stated. That statement is a gross oversimplification of my openly stated position, and I will give it no further acknowledgement than to encourage anyone who wants to know what I said to go back and read what I said in this post and elsewhere.
In fact, I do believe in the necessity of a transparent society for the function of liberty and republicanism. What I question is the rancor and vociferousness of the debate. There are a lot of words being thrown around as if we live in a tyrannical dictatorship even as we live in a society more free from individual regulation than has, perhaps, ever existed.
What I am trying to discern is a case where the system has actually failed in its entirety and the result has been unchecked tyranny of the powerful against the now powerless. Contrary to what you state, such a failure of our system of transparency to protect itself would be clearly evident and easily identified.
I think the problem many people have in this debate is that they expect the preservation of transparency, liberty, and republicanism to be a pristine straight line. Instead, and due directly to the fact that this preservation is done by inherently flawed human beings, the path is a sometimes jagged, sometimes drunken swerve from one extreme to another. Yet, for most of us, the reality of transparency, liberty, and republicanism is the best fit line.
Again, my question is not a trap, but rather an attempt to find an example of where such transparency has failed so as to use it as the basis for a far more practical debate than one over theories of things that have not actually happened.
Denny wrote:
"David, I do not intend my questions as a trap, but rather an attempt to drive to the heart of the debate."
In light of our previously more contentious conversations, I apologize for my poor choice of words. I did not mean to imply that you were purposely trying to trap me or otherwise act less than forthrightly.
My use of the word "trap" was only intended to characterize what I viewed and already described as the problems inherent with the challenge.
I'd also like to say that I don't think I have unfairly represented your position. You have expressed, pretty consistently, that while you might wish for better solutions, you support warrantless wiretapping. You have further given the impression, to me at least, that it is ok with you that the government be granted the authority to gather evidence in secret and then preemptively make arrests or detain people in instances where a crime or act of terrorism has not yet been committed. I think you've pretty consistently voiced your concerns about terrorist operating on our soil and the need to stop them before they strike.
In light of that stance -- one which requires only the threat of attack for you to want to take decisive, preemptive action -- that you don't seem to be as concerned or willing to take preemptive action against even potential abuses of power. Instead, you offer up a difficult to achieve standard of proof before you will even concede "that the whole issue of a transparent society is actually relevant."
I didn't think any of that, with the possible exception of my use of the word "trap", constituted a misrepresentation of your point of view or "rancor." I certainly didn't say that you were giving the government a blank check. I clearly recall that you have said on at least one other, and I believe at least two other occassions, that you catergorically do NOT grant them a blank check. I don't think there's anything in my comment that says or implies you support a blank check.
"There are a lot of words being thrown around as if we live in a tyrannical dictatorship even as we live in a society more free from individual regulation than has, perhaps, ever existed."
I disagree. I think people are concerned that we're heading that way and want to stop the erosion of liberty and the increase in government control and authoritarianism that is creeping in. I think there have been periods in our own history that demonstrate that there was previously more freedom. It's not that we're a tyranny; it's that we don't want to become one. And yes, I am vociferous about that. I believe it is as much of threat as or a greater threat than terrorism.
We've always had enemies and we always will. The voices in the terror brigade keep talking as if we've never had enemies. Each enemy we've ever faced has been characterized as the worst ever, ingenious in the newness of its perfidy. Please.
Are the tactics of our enemy different? Sort of. Terrorism isn't exactly a brand new tactic, but facing a non-state threat does require us to adapt our approach to them -- tactically. But it shouldn't alter our principles. Scott speaks eloquently to this in his latest post.
"What I am trying to discern is a case where the system has actually failed in its entirety and the result has been unchecked tyranny of the powerful against the now powerless."
Again, this is, in my opinion, the wrong standard. Once the checks fail, we can't correct it with debate that leads to right action. The only right action available to us in that case is open rebellion. Holding a firmer line now is what allows us to have a peaceful resolution.
"Again, my question is not a trap, but rather an attempt to find an example of where such transparency has failed so as to use it as the basis for a far more practical debate than one over theories of things that have not actually happened."
I'll give you two, one obvious and the other more subtle.
1) The transition of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire and the resulting diminution of the Roman senate and the increase and subsequent dominance of the Roman Emperor.
2) The situation faced by the American colonies as they began as British subjects who believed their interests were fairly represented but came to feel that their voices were not heard in the halls of power. The colonies went to war for their freedom against the most enlightened government then on the planet over essentially a tax issue. That's the level of freedom that our founders risked all for. And they were highly sensitive to the abuses of British power such as, say, unlawful searches and seizures or private property.
If you want a more contemporary example, how about Bush's use of signing statements to edit and in some cases negate laws passed by Congress. Rather than executing the law, as is his job, he has taken it upon himself to effectively make law or choose which laws and parts of laws he would enforce. Who is checking him? Who is even talking about this in the halls of power? I've not seen this debated on C-SPAN (I could have missed it; I don't watch 24/7).
I think I've met the challenge (so I guess it wasn't an impossibly high standard after all. I was wrong about that. Sorry.)
Now, you will, of course, agree that transparency is relevant (though not the whole solution) or at least our debate can be more practical (though I'm not sure how it wasn't practical.)
Whoops, forgot to finish a thought:
"In light of that stance -- one which requires only the threat of attack for you to want to take decisive, preemptive action -- that you don't seem to be as concerned or willing to take preemptive action against even potential abuses of power seems strange or inconsistent to me."
Re-reading my post, I note some inconsistencies, so allow me to clarify.
I have strayed from the discussion of transparency to check and balances because I think they are related. Some of my examples and points waver between the two. Transparency is certainly relevant because it provides the opportunity to enforce the check and balances. Without transparency, there can be no checks and balances. However, even with transparency, checks and balances can fail. In my opinion, we currently face a threat to both of these democratic tools.
"You have further given the impression, to me at least, that it is ok with you that the government be granted the authority to gather evidence in secret and then preemptively make arrests or detain people in instances where a crime or act of terrorism has not yet been committed."
And that is why I said that my statements were being taken out of context. Your impression is incorrect and one I have never implied.
For the record again, I support warrantless surveillance as a method of gathering causal evidence against foreign agents operating within our borders. Once such causal evidence has been gathered, I believe that any additional action taken should be done through the well established systems of governance and oversight this nation has used since its foundation. The only additional power I grant the government, in this case, is the power to establish cause.
Just because I can understand the reasons that the administration has used other extraordinary powers in some circumstances does not mean that I agree with or condone their use. I have not and will not allow my statements in this regard to be mischaracterized in an attempt to cast my views in a particular light they do not reflect.
David, your two examples are exactly the kinds of examples I was considering myself, and exactly the reason that I still doubt the debate as it is being characterized. Even a quick comparison of the two examples to the current state of affairs in the United States shows that, if we are suffering from a breakdown, it is not in the way those two examples transpired, but in other ways, if at all.
I have never questioned the need for transparency, checks and balances, or any other kinds of controls on the relationships inside government or between government and the people. I have said throughout this debate that I believe those processes are working. What I question is the nature of the debate itself: This notion that we are teetering on the edge of the precipice of tyranny from which we will never be able to escape.
The reason I have this question is because of the fundamental differences between us and Rome or between us and our colonial forefathers: a Constitutional government, a military free and independent of a single person's sway, a populace that (in some part) will not allow such excesses to occur without a fight.
Perhaps this entire discussion is an example of the latter, and if so, I have no concern. The system is working as designed and the best fit line will be maintained. I do not see the process as a threat, but as a part of the game.
Post a Comment